COLUMN: Dealing with door fees issue

From Eric Goldstein's, "Upon Further Review," Fall '97 From Eric Goldstein's, "Upon Further Review," Fall '97 As Matt Baker begins his term as president of the InterFraternity Council, he bears the weight of the Penn social scene. As the outgoing board fades into the background, the incoming officers are left with a fantastic mess. The question that must be answered is: how are fraternities supposed to pay for their parties? Furthermore, a number of these fraternities' national chapters specifically prohibit the exchange of money between party-goers and frats as part of their risk management plans, according to Carroll. It is unfortunate lines have been drawn and enemies have been declared in this battle. The fraternities are claiming University administrators are just trying to assume a parental role by cracking down on parties and drinking. The truth is the University has no choice. The laws are clear: frats cannot charge for admission to parties. Administrators should not be demonized for trying to make student organizations comply with the law. They have already been unfairly blamed for the bring-your-own-beer policy that now regulates IFC parties. In truth, it was the national chapters of the frats that pushed the policy for insurance reasons. And now the administration is again being blamed for ending door fees at parties, when the University obviously has nothing to do with issuing entertainment permits. This is not to say the University has handled its relationship with the IFC in a perfect manner. By calling state Liquor Control Enforcement agents to monitor Spring Fling activities last year and to patrol the area around frat parties, the administration did students a disservice. There were of course a number of underage students drinking. But the University should have taken measures to protect the students instead of turning them in to authorities. Both sides -- frats and administrators -- have been in the wrong in the past. And both sides continue to misunderstand the other's intentions. Such a policy would obviously force Penn fraternities to dig deeper into their pockets, as DJ fees, decorations and administrative costs would all have to be funded through dues. (The University's BYOB policy absolves frats of alcohol costs -- assuming the policy was followed.) As former IFC President Josh Gottheimer pointed out, administrative cost can average about $800 per party alone. The IFC says it needs the University to put up between $75,000 and $90,000 for open parties to become financially realistic for IFC members. To help alleviate the burden, the IFC is knocking around the idea of offering a GreekCard next fall. For a flat fee, students would be able to purchase this card allowing them to attend all frat parties for the next year. As Carroll also suggested, the revenues from such a plan could possibly cover some of the costs associated with rush and Greek Week. The plan has gained praise from many as an innovative way to get around a tricky situation. Frats wouldn't have to charge at the door, but they wouldn't assume a great monetary loss either. Compared to the other options tossed around -- including Greek-only parties, fewer parties and smaller parties -- which would certainly stunt the social scene at Penn, the GreekCard is very palatable. But whether such a program would solve the underlying problems is doubtful. Should a fraternity be taken to court for violation of one of the statutes, would the GreekCard be viewed as just an indirect door charge? The IFC appears to be searching for a loophole in the law that is not there. So is there a saving grace out there somewhere just waiting to be found? Not likely. Eventually someone -- either legislators, administrators or the IFC -- is going to have to back down. And you can't fight City Hall, right? So there are only two viable options. Either the administration can help subsidize the costs of parties, or the frats are going to have to bite the bullet and fund the parties themselves. Neither is a terribly attractive option, but more important, both are legal. This past weekend, a number of frats held parties and charged entry fees. Baker condoned this practice, stating until a policy is agreed upon, frats cannot be expected to pay for parties on their own. Apparently Baker and the frats that are charging do not feel the law should interfere with their internal policies. It is unfortunate this legitimate problem is being clouded by the rash behavior of some fraternities. However, in spite of the recent events, the University is in a position to help find a solution. Just because the administration didn't make the law doesn't mean it can't help the IFC comply with it. The best option is for the University to come up with the $75,000 to $90,000 necessary to subsidize frat parties. Or perhaps an agreement can be negotiated between the IFC and the administration whereby costs would be shared. But surely there would be some liability issues arising from such an arrangement. In exchange for such financing, IFC houses would likely have to commit themselves to the BYOB policy, adhere strictly to underage drinking statutes and monitor any excessive drinking. A number of other issues would arise from such a scenario. Would this money come at the expense of other student organizations? Would the IFC have to go through the Student Activities Council? And if so, what regulations would the IFC be subject to? The fact remains, though, the University has the money and the frats don't. And limiting frat parties to Greeks only or cutting the frequency of the parties to one per semester should not even be options. The only thing clear in this debate is the status quo is not acceptable -- not to the national chapters, not to the administrators and not in the eyes of the law.